ArticlePloS one2009
Can survival prediction be improved by merging gene expression data sets?
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative study of joint analysis of microarray gene expression data in survival prediction and risk assessment of breast cancer patients.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2016Pooled it
- An integrative approach for the identification of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in rectal cancer.Oncotarget · 2015Pooled it
- NMJ-associated transcriptomic remodeling correlates with disease severity in juvenile dermatomyositis.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Synaptic pruning genes networks in Alzheimer's disease: correlations with neuropathology and cognitive decline.GeroScience · 2026Article
- A hybrid feature extraction framework combining PCA and mutual information for gene expression based lung cancer classification.PloS one · 2026Article
- Sex-Specific Molecular Architecture of Microglia-Mediated Neuronal Pruning Across the Human Lifespan.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Article
- Exploring SERPINA3 as a neuroinflammatory modulator in Alzheimer's disease with sex and regional brain variations.Metabolic brain disease · 2025Article
- Skeletal muscle of young females under resistance exercise exhibits a unique innate immune cell infiltration profile compared to males and elderly individuals.Journal of muscle research and cell motility · 2024Article
- Strategies for improving the performance of prediction models for response to immune checkpoint blockade therapy in cancer.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- A sex-stratified analysis of neuroimmune gene expression signatures in Alzheimer's disease brains.GeroScience · 2023Article
- Resistin-like beta reduction is associated to low survival rate and is downregulated by adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A pairwise strategy for imputing predictive features when combining multiple datasets.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Circulating monocytes associated with anti-PD-1 resistance in human biliary cancer induce T cell paralysis.Cell reports · 2022Article
- GJA1/CX43 High Expression Levels in the Cervical Spinal Cord of ALS Patients Correlate to Microglia-Mediated Neuroinflammatory Profile.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Lactate Induces the Expressions of MCT1 and HCAR1 to Promote Tumor Growth and Progression in Glioblastoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Enhanced Directed Random Walk for the Identification of Breast Cancer Prognostic Markers from Multiclass Expression Data.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Spatial distribution of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks in South Africa (2005-2016).Tropical animal health and production · 2021Article
- GNG13 Is a Potential Marker of the State of Health of Alzheimer's Disease Patients' Cerebellum.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2021Article
- BrainCells · 2021Article
- CHI3L2 Expression Levels Are Correlated with AIF1, PECAM1, and CALB1 in the Brains of Alzheimer's Disease Patients.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-throughput gene expression profiling technologies generating a wealth of data, are increasingly used for characterization of tumor biopsies for clinical trials. By applying machine learning algorithms to such clinically documented data sets, one hopes to improve tumor diagnosis, prognosis, as well as prediction of treatment response. However, the limited number of patients enrolled in a single trial study limits the power of machine learning approaches due to over-fitting. One could partially overcome this limitation by merging data from different studies. Nevertheless, such data sets differ from each other with regard to technical biases, patient selection criteria and follow-up treatment. It is therefore not clear at all whether the advantage of increased sample size outweighs the disadvantage of higher heterogeneity of merged data sets. Here, we present a systematic study to answer this question specifically for breast cancer data sets. We use survival prediction based on Cox regression as an assay to measure the added value of merged data sets.
resultsUsing time-dependent Receiver Operating Characteristic-Area Under the Curve (ROC-AUC) and hazard ratio as performance measures, we see in overall no significant improvement or deterioration of survival prediction with merged data sets as compared to individual data sets. This apparently was due to the fact that a few genes with strong prognostic power were not available on all microarray platforms and thus were not retained in the merged data sets. Surprisingly, we found that the overall best performance was achieved with a single-gene predictor consisting of CYB5D1.
conclusionsMerging did not deteriorate performance on average despite (a) The diversity of microarray platforms used. (b) The heterogeneity of patients cohorts. (c) The heterogeneity of breast cancer disease. (d) Substantial variation of time to death or relapse. (e) The reduced number of genes in the merged data sets. Predictors derived from the merged data sets were more robust, consistent and reproducible across microarray platforms. Moreover, merging data sets from different studies helps to better understand the biases of individual studies and can lead to the identification of strong survival factors like CYB5D1 expression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.